The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning.

That figure tops last February’s record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse.

Last month’s federal deficit is nearly four times as large as the spending cuts House Republicans have passed in their spending bill, and is more than 30 times the size of Senate Democrats’ opening bid of $6 billion.

Senators are slated to vote this week on those two proposals — both of which are expected to fail — and then all sides will go back to the negotiating table to try to work out a final deal.

When you hear President Obama or the Democrats say that their plan will "reduce the deficit by $1.1 Trillion over 10 years" you are being played for a chump because $1.1 Trillion over 10 years amounts to saying, "We're going to keep adding to the debt, but we'll just add $110 Billion less per year than if we kept spending and borrowing money at the current rate."

The money being borrowed and spent today by your Federal government is going to personally bankrupt you, either by tax rates over 50% or by a collapsed economy that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like an economic boom.

There will be no social security, no government health care, and no jobs.

The current crop of legislators in Washington DC have declared war on you!

The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning.

That figure tops last February’s record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse.

And the reason why you are doomed is that there is no political will in Washington DC to STOP the spending, as every Federal government program is deemed "sacred" and "without it, grandma will be thrown into the gutter, families will freeze to death without their government heating subsidy and people will starve to death without food stamps."

Last month’s federal deficit is nearly four times as large as the spending cuts House Republicans have passed in their spending bill, and is more than 30 times the size of Senate Democrats’ opening bid of $6 billion.

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

PS: Those calculations are derived using an infinite horizon model. Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

"The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook."

Christian73 saidMost of us are, thankfully, immune to your fearmongering.

The facts are:

Social security and medicare are already dead.

Social Security is currently owed $14.8 Trillion

Medicare is currently owed $78.2 Trillion

Prescription drugs paid for by the government is currently owed $19.6 Trillion

On a per taxpayer basis, it means each taxpayer would have to pay over $1 Million to restore those programs to solvency.

To put it in more perspective, even if we taxed everything at 100% (that's 100% of all the earnings of all the citizens and all the corporations), that would only amount to $14.6 Trillion.

In other words, the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA is $14.6 Trillion so "taxing our way out of this" isn't an option.

That's ridiculous and, as usual, without a credible source. The Washington Times makes Mad Magazine look like the bastion of journalism.

Are you saying the numbers as published by the White House, Treasury are wrong or taken out of context?

I addressed this above:

PS: Those calculations are derived using an infinite horizon model. Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

"The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook."

Instead of donating money and shit to starving retards in Africa, Haiti, Assghanistan or whatever why don't we invest in our own poor people like say oh all the Black people that have still been ignored from Hurricane Katrina. Just a thought to keep from the U.S. dollar from leaving the U.S.

southbeach1500 saidI used to think Christian73 was fairly well informed on these matters.

But based on his comment, it's clear he - and many of the other liberals - don't have a clue what is going on with regards to this topic.

"Just end the $100 Billion in tax breaks for the oil companies!"

As if that's going to even put a tiny dent in this outrageous debt and burden on all American RJ members for decades to come and they'll be getting nothing in return.

To put this in context, in 2007 the deficit for the entire year added up to $161 Billion.

In just one month, February 2011, it was $223 Billion.

First of all, I didn't say anything about oil companies.

Second, you can make anyone's books like bad (or worse in this case) by picking out a month of cash flow from the overall budget year.

Third, if you're not willing to have taxes raised raised, subsidies ended, and loopholes closed for the very wealthy and large corporations (in addition to cutting spending), you're simply not serious about ending the deficit or paying off our debt.

Christian73 saidPS: Those calculations are derived using an infinite horizon model. Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

"The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook."

They're talking about $4 Trillion over 10 years which is a $400 billion reduction in the amount of debt added each year.

Or to put it another way, our $1.65 Trillion debt this year would "only" be $1.25 Trillion.

Unfortunately, we're way past the day when these gimmicks will actually get us out of the mess.

We don't need $100 trillion. Stop being a troll. Do you calculate your businesses expenses over an "infinite horizon"? Does your accountant?

Yes, we must deal with both the annual deficit and the debt, but your hysteria isn't helping. And, if you're opposed to raising taxes on those who can afford it, closing loopholes and ending subsidies, you're just not serious. You're just raving into the wind.

Christian73 saidWe don't need $100 trillion. Stop being a troll. Do you calculate your businesses expenses over an "infinite horizon"? Does your accountant?

Yes, we must deal with both the annual deficit and the debt, but your hysteria isn't helping. And, if you're opposed to raising taxes on those who can afford it, closing loopholes and ending subsidies, you're just not serious. You're just raving into the wind.

The numbers I provided are as of now.

But perhaps everyone will die tomorrow and there won't be hundreds of millions of Americans needing Social Security or Medicare.

That certainly would solve the problem.

I suppose the other way is to monetize the debt (which is already going on).

Again:

"The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook."

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

Those of us who are well-informed about the 30 years of conservative policies that led to the financial meltdown will continue to remind those of you who have bought into Republican party line about its causes each time you bring up your "fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened."

"The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook."

Oh, OK.

Everything is fine then.

Let's be happy that we'll be "reducing the deficit" by $4 Trillion over a period of 10 years. That's the sensible approach that will take care of the problem. Oh, and with some 90% tax rates on "the rich" for a decade or two, that will get the debt eliminated.

It's not gonna happen, and I guarantee you that in just 4 or 5 years today's $14 Trillion in debt will be over $20 Trillion because of these snake oil sales pitches about "reducing the deficit" while they act like that is the problem and fixing that will fix the real problem, which is the debt.

Not saying "everything is fine"; just that your scare tactics are silly and obvious. The Tea Baggers that you said would solve our economic woes and create jobs have done nothing of the sort and instead are attacking unions, the poor, women and, of course, gays. You may think liberals have their head in the sand but yours is firmly up your ass.

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

Those of us who are well-informed about the 30 years of conservative policies that led to the financial meltdown will continue to remind those of you who have bought into Republican party line about its causes each time you bring up your "fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened."

There's the lie again.

"30 years of conservative policies."

The Republicans haven't controlled the government for 30 years.

I said "conservative policies" not conservative government. The political dynamics of the US have been pushed rightward by monied interests for the last 30 years and Democrats have allowed it.

And we've had Republican presidents for 22 of the last 32 years. So stop being ridiculous.

Not saying "everything is fine"; just that your scare tactics are silly and obvious. The Tea Baggers that you said would solve our economic woes and create jobs have done nothing of the sort and instead are attacking unions, the poor, women and, of course, gays. You may think liberals have their head in the sand but yours is firmly up your ass.

So, what years were those "30 years" when the Republicans controlled the Federal government?

Obviously, I don't know what they are, but you and the other liberals on here are constantly parroting that line, so do tell us ignorant non-socialists on here what those 30 years were.

Christian73 saidI said "conservative policies" not conservative government. The political dynamics of the US have been pushed rightward by monied interests for the last 30 years and Democrats have allowed it.

Now the backtracking begins....

Christian73 said

And we've had Republican presidents for 22 of the last 32 years. So stop being ridiculous.

And the President writes the laws, originates the spending bills and signs them into law. How convenient that it all happened in the White House!

There's no backtracking; I'm just not going to let your misconstrue what I said.

To your other "point", you pick and choose when you want to hold the president responsible or the legislature based on which one is controlled by the Democrats at the time. It's a tedious shell game.

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

Those of us who are well-informed about the 30 years of conservative policies that led to the financial meltdown will continue to remind those of you who have bought into Republican party line about its causes each time you bring up your "fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened."

Conservative policies did not cause the crisis though, inherently liberal policies were to blame. The conservative policy would be to leave things alone (which would not have resulted in the housing crisis as we know it), the liberal policy is to interfere and manipulate with the regular flow of the market in order to create the desired effect --- which, in this case, was aimed at "helping" lower income people to afford homes and passing on that risk to taxpayers. Everything about the housing crisis was rooted in liberal policies and not from a laissez faire approach.

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

Those of us who are well-informed about the 30 years of conservative policies that led to the financial meltdown will continue to remind those of you who have bought into Republican party line about its causes each time you bring up your "fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened."

Conservative policies did not cause the crisis though, liberal policies were. The conservative policy would be to leave things alone (which would not have resulted in the collapse), the liberal policy is to interfere and manipulate in order to create the desired effect --- which, in this case, was aimed at "helping" lower income people to afford homes and passing on that risk to taxpayers. Everything about the housing crisis was rooted in liberal policies.

Two things...

One, the housing crisis was driven primarily by non-government backed mortgage lenders like CountryWide, not institutions which had federal backing.

Two, the housing crisis did not cause the financial crisis; unregulated derivatives did.

US Government posts biggest payment on the failed financial regulatory laws puts in place by the Repubs after rescinding the laws that kept us safe since the Great Depression, and to safe the asses of financiers who took huge risks and almost totally killed the economy of the United States.

The "risks" you refer to were imposed by our government (led by democrats) which ordered the banks to take those risks while simultaneously backing any potential negative outcomes with taxpayer dollars. How many more times are you going to parrot this fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened?

Those of us who are well-informed about the 30 years of conservative policies that led to the financial meltdown will continue to remind those of you who have bought into Republican party line about its causes each time you bring up your "fictitious and ridiculous version of what happened."

Conservative policies did not cause the crisis though, liberal policies were. The conservative policy would be to leave things alone (which would not have resulted in the collapse), the liberal policy is to interfere and manipulate in order to create the desired effect --- which, in this case, was aimed at "helping" lower income people to afford homes and passing on that risk to taxpayers. Everything about the housing crisis was rooted in liberal policies.

Two things...

One, the housing crisis was driven primarily by non-government backed mortgage lenders like CountryWide, not institutions which had federal backing.

Two, the housing crisis did not cause the financial crisis; unregulated derivatives did.

Since fannie and freddie were required to push into mass buying of bad loans, they created the environment for demand which made it profitable for mortgage lenders, including countrywide, to engage in bad practices which they normally would not have done --- the commercial banks looked up to Fannie and Freddie as "too big to fail" and as authorities on what were good and acceptable practices. Any risk of failure could be absorbed through FDIC, however.

And now let's look at the PC and pseudo-compassion that played into WHY countrywide engaged in those egregious practices:

"Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]

Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses. This guideline was not established by Countrywide, but rather the investors to whom they sold their loans [THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT, OH WAIT, TAXPAYERS BACK EVERYTHING AND THE INVESTORS WERE INTERESTED IN MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW "GOOD" AND "COMPASSIONATE" THEY WERE]. However Countrywide had no qualms in following through despite it knowing those families would likely fail to make monthly payments [WHY WOULD THEY CARE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BACKS ANY POSSIBLE FALTERING WITH YOUR MONEY?]: these loans would be sold to investors shortly after anyway. Employees were given scripts as a sales aid when talking to customers about taking out loans.

Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"[NO DO-GOODING HERE AT ALL, RIGHT? JUST EVIL GREEDY BANKERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A BUCK---WHICH I'M SURE THEY DID WANT THAT TOO!] --- Bank Of America Home Loans (Wikipedia)

This all seems like the workings of "conservative" policies to you, right?